Unfortunately, I have a very dim view of the current liberal movement. But I respect the tradition and it's contribution to American politics so I'll write about that before I disparage the sad state of the contemporary American Left.
In my very first posting I referred to the presidential election of 1932 between Republican President Herbert Hoover and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. This was the election when Democrats became the "liberal" party and establish the foundation of it's modern incarnation. Republicans had controlled the White House all through the prosperous and peaceful 1920s. Herbert Hoover was a brilliant and popular president, winning the nomination and general election in 1928 by a landslide. He was a moderate, considered part of the Progressive movement but more pro-business than his predecessors. His undoing was that he presided over the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing depression.
FDR probably had the election in the bag from the get go. But as part of his campaign he did something that was seen as shrewd but trivial at the time but that would have long lasting significance: He dropped the Progressive label that had become a Democratic heritage with Woodrow Wilson and began to refer to his philosophy as "Liberal." It was a rather far fetched ploy since he was not at all proposing more free market economics and small, less intrusive government, quite the opposite. But the Progressive label had become a liability: Wilson's League of Nations never worked, the Prohibition was a disaster and, worst of all, the Republican candidate Hoover was seen as a Progressive, even if only by association.
Hoover's reaction to FDR was to insist that clearly the Republicans were the more liberal party - more free market and against the League of Nations. And, obviously, prohibition was inaugurated by President Wilson.
But FDR won and ever since then the Democrats have called themselves "Liberals." So what does the term mean in it's new incarnation?
FDR's essential justification for claiming to be a liberal was that he was offering a new kind of freedom that seemed a lot more attractive to most people in those dark days of the early 1930s: Freedom from want, freedom from hunger and unemployment, freedom from fear. Sounds pretty good, right?
To offer this kind of new freedom FDR and his brain trust created dozens of new government agencies to provide new services for the people. The size of the federal government grew 10 times over. Of course, in order to pay for this new taxes had to be levied but they were presented as a temporary measure to solve a crisis. (There's a lesson in that somewhere, I think).
So the bottom line is that the liberals are interested in using the power of government to solve people's problems. At first that was primarily in the realm of economics but with the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s it was extended into social issues. The liberals wanted to make sure that no one's rights were infringed upon or denied, to make sure that everyone acted in a liberal fashion, and felt that the government could and should do the making sure.
The dilemma for liberals is that using the government to make people change, even if you consider it a change for good, requires force - and that isn't very liberal.
When it came to foreign policy, things are even more confusing. Before 1968 the liberals (i.e. the Democrats) were the interventionists and the conservatives were generally isolationists, although both vigorously opposed Soviet communist expansion. Our involvement in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam was promoted and undertaken by Democrats/liberals and opposed by most Republicans. Now it is just the reverse.
So what's up with liberals today? The movement described above doesn't sound too unreasonable, it sounds very good in many ways. For the last 30 or so years the liberals have become more and more radical and coercive, more isolationist and less and less liberal. Fitting then that H. R. Clinton wants a new label. And for once I support her agenda.
7 comments:
Awesome history lesson. Although, why does Hilliary have to be right?!! Do other "liberals" agree with her? Or is she the only one?
Movers and shakers on the far left - Howard Deaniacs, MoveOn, DailyKos - have been using the term "Progressive" ever since the Democrats lost in 2000. It was an attempt to distinguish themselves from the centrist Democratic Leadership Committee led by the Clintons. When Hillary claimed the label Progressive it was an attempt to win some favor from the far left, activists likely to oppose her for being too moderate. It also sounds kind of new and exciting. The truth is, in my humble opinion, that the Democrats since Wilson have never ceased to be Progressives. They still believe in the Progressive dream, to use the government to make society "better."
Correction - its the Democratic Leadership Council, not Committee.
Sorry about the deleted comment...what I wanted to say was that I secretly like the way "Progressive" sounds. I wish we could claim it as Conservatives but of course not the bigger government part(among others). Mainly just because it sounds good and "Conservatives" sounds old and grouchy or something. No wonder there are new spin off names of the conservative party (i.e., Neoconservative, etc.).
I enjoyed the history lesson too. Can't wait for Chapter 2...hopfully more details about the years since Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society started rearing it's ugly head. In addition to liberals becoming "more radical, more coersive, and more isolationist," they have also become more socialistic.
Government-provided-everything seems to be their ultimate goal. Recievers are thrilled to recieve whatever they can get, but the fallacy of that is in our tax bills. We've all heard about the speed with which many liberal college students become conservative, after they graduate and recieve their first paycheck.
I don't blame Moveon, DailyKos and HRC for wanting to circle back around and be called a progressive again. People are catching on that liberalism doesn't necessarily mean personal freedom. Promises cost money, and socialistic governments run out of money when they run out of producers.
Democrats try to create a dependant voting base by creating liberal programs. As the modern media makes their masked intentions obvious to the public, they have to camouflage their liberalness, hense politicians like HRC, who already has plenty of things to hide, puts on a mask and calls herself a progressive.
My parents were young adults during the Great Depression. They were among the many Americans who felt like FDR saved them from poverty with the creation of new government programs. Little did they know that their belief in the Social Security they were promised for their old age would be the very thing that resulted in their old age poverty.
I hear people on those radio talk shows say things like, "Name one govt. program that has done us any good."
Can someone name one?
Post a Comment